Will Soldiers Have to Use Private Ins?

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

Dream on ya hippie. The corp/company is there to MAKE MONEY. Whatever they do that is the primary goal.

Whatever. I disagree.

Really? I have no idea, but many do come here too.
Where has medicine for profit gotten us? Please elaborate.

Well, just look at the mess we're in now. THAT'S where it's gotten us.

How much does the "average rich" person make?

Not 5 million/year.

False. I pay for my own (ee+fam on a two tier system) and its about $432 a month - you do the math. Its an HMO with a very large company.

I was going by all the statistics put out during the campaign, and also basing it on some people I know who can't afford insurance but make a reasonable income.[/quote]

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Some things just should not be about profit. Medicine is one of them.

What about food? We all need food even more than we need medicine. Should the distribution of food be a non-profit model as well?

[sugarpop]

I don't think food should be taxed, and I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over and put small farms out of business. And I don't think water should be taxed, and I believe we deserve clean, pure water to drink, and pesticide-free food to eat. I don't really think it's fair that now we as a people have to either buy bottled water, or filters, in order to have pure water. WE didn't pollute the water, business did.

As far it being non-profit, I don't know. Working a farm is HARD, I know, my mother was raised on a farm and my uncle had a working farm. I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something seriously wrong with making a profit at the cost of health, and fairness, and the benefit of society.

[lookout123]

I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model.

That is one of the most amusing statements I've ever read.

[classicman]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't think food should be taxed,
And I don't think water should be taxed

So what do you think should be taxed? Where/how do you determine what should be from taxation and what should be taxed? Where do you draw the line?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

WE didn't pollute the water, business did.

What business did? Who the heck is running these big bad evil businesses and corporations that you keep referring to? Are they some sort of alien overlords or something? There are people making the decisions.

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model.

Wow! It started in the 70's or 80's then? What was the "motivating factor" before then?

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I really think that, over the past 30 years, profit has become such a motivating factor in everything that it has polluted the capitalist model. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, but there is something seriously wrong with making a profit at the cost of health, and fairness, and the benefit of society.

I wouldnt put it quite like that.

But I do think that deregulation over the last 30 years (Reagan, Clinton, Bush) has not always been in the best public interest.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by classicman

So what do you think should be taxed? Where/how do you determine what should be from taxation and what should be taxed? Where do you draw the line?

Maybe the necessities should not be taxed. You know, utilities, food, water.

What business did? Who the heck is running these big bad evil businesses and corporations that you keep referring to? Are they some sort of alien overlords or something? There are people making the decisions.

Well gee, mercury certainly doesn't make it into the water supply all by itself, neither do other toxic chemicals and biological agents. And e coli and salmonella didn't make it into spinach and carrots all by themselves. In addition, drinking water also now has traces of pharmacueticals in it, probably from people dumping pills in the toilet.

http://www.sierraclub.org/cleanwater/
http://www.umich.edu/~gs265/society/waterpollution.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_pollution
http://www.nrdc.org/water/default.asp
http://www.metrowestdailynews.com/archive/x1574803042

Wow! It started in the 70's or 80's then? What was the "motivating factor" before then?

I'm not saying profit hasn't always been a motivating factor, and that greed hasn't always been around. I am saying it has gotten out of control, at the expense of society as a whole.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

Maybe the necessities should not be taxed. You know, utilities, food, water.

Many states have groceries, prescription drugs and sometimes clothing exempt from general sales tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_t...te_sales_taxes

(look at shaded green)

[xoxoxoBruce]

Yes, but even states like PA that have no sales tax on food/drugs/clothing, have plenty of hidden taxes that drive the cost of those items. Of course it's better than the states that do both.

[TGRR]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I don't think food should be taxed, and I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over and put small farms out of business.

Small farms don't feed cities.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Small farms don't feed cities.

Urban agriculture can hopefully make an impact if it starts growing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_agriculture

Lots of benefits to it.

[xoxoxoBruce]

That's a pipe dream.
First of all, in order to grow food for the city on the surrounding land, you have to tear down the suburbs that are already there. The people that live on the fringes of the city, while they love the bucolic view, soon bitch about the smells, insects, dust, etc, that go along with agriculture.

Now, the people of a particular city could get fresh veggies grown closer... in season. But, not every veggie can be grown everywhere, so the best you can hope for is some produce, some of the year, that costs more.

But for grains, meat, tropical fruits, fugetaboutit.

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

That's a pipe dream.
First of all, in order to grow food for the city on the surrounding land, you have to tear down the suburbs that are already there. The people that live on the fringes of the city, while they love the bucolic view, soon bitch about the smells, insects, dust, etc, that go along with agriculture.

The ancient city-state setup isn't the only urban agriculture option. Green roofs are getting increasingly popular and a few cities (Vancouver and Portland) have started planting large gardens in unused lots with some success. It wouldn't be profitable now, but if sources of energy became cheaper entire buildings could be dedicated to the growth of vegetables and maybe even fruits and grains.

Also, preventing excess water runoff is becoming a large issue in cities and methods or preventing runoff can easily coincide with urban agriculture.

[sugarpop]

Originally Posted by TGRR

Small farms don't feed cities.

I never said they did. I said I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over everything at the expense of smaller farms. And you know, it didn't always exist, yet people always seemed to have food before. (yes, I know how naive that sounds. It is still the truth.)

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by sugarpop

I never said they did. I said I don't like the way big agri-business has taken over everything at the expense of smaller farms. And you know, it didn't always exist, yet people always seemed to have food before. (yes, I know how naive that sounds. It is still the truth.)

Over half the population used to farmers as well.